Even better when someone forked it away from proprietary, closed-source, publicly-traded, for-profit, US-based, account-required, training-AI-on-your-code-then-selling-it-back-to-you Microsoft GitHub forge/social media network often with vendor lock-in to some other forge without all that BS.
no account is required unless you’re submitting code
it’s free
Submitting issues & discussions require an account. Using the search for code requires an account. On Lemmy this week there was also a post about viewing “Discussions” & “Wiki” being A/B tested or whatever with an account required to view. Which is to say, if submitting patches, issues, & or using some features requires giving up personal info & agreeing to Microsoft’s ToS to create an account, you have locked out users & their freedom isn’t respected if their autonomy to not create an account with a company known for predatory behavior cannot be respected.
lock-in
Users locked out sucks, but so does lock in. Sure you can set a non Microsoft GitHub remote & push to it, but I’m talking about the forge on whole rather than the tool that backs it. The more Microsoft GitHub features you rely on, the more the existance of a ./.github directory’s or otherwise gets cited as being too hard to move. As more features get locked behind authentication, so will the APIs that allow some ability to migrate. GitHub were the popularizers of the “pull request” model too which is severely limiting but is the only way you can operate on their site (no stacked diffs, mailing patchsets, etc.) which eliminates alternating review methods (while you could use a third-party, due to MS GitHub’s ingrained workflow to too many, I’ve seen alternatives being considered as “too hard” rather than “different” (even if could be “better”)). I’ve also witnessed some communities like Elm freeload on the “free” hosting & require all community packages be upload to only MS GitHub or you can’t publish & by proxy participate in the community (or in their case even refer to other remotes, VCSs, tarballs for packages (even private ones) but that is due to Elm having a terrible default package manager).
They’ve embraced a Git forge; they’ve extended the space with Codespaces, Sponsors, Actions, Copilot, even VS Code proliferation far beyond pre-acquisition GitHub; now we just await the extinguish part.
I was the only one in that thread who actually tested that post last week, and i couldn’t replicate it. Nobody tested it, and there wasn’t even a screenshot or repo which was tested. There was 0 evidence. People only suggested A/B testing only after I tested it, because they were likely too lazy to test (and rather than ask OP for their testing methodology, instead just assumed they were right). Nobody mentioned it in any projects either, and they WOULD have. I suspect OP was wrong (and there was a partial outage that day), which could have affected those services.
The search for code DOES NOT MATTER! You can still download the code… Not a big deal. The tipoff should be, that nobody hosted by Github is actually publicly complaining about it on their project lol
I actually STRONGLY agree with that lawsuit though
Just because Microsoft made improvements to the service, doesn’t mean they plan to extinguish anything. It doesn’t always happen (VS Code is a good example… Totally open source, multiplatform, and MIT licenced)
But you’re willing to gloss over all methods of contribution (unless the project owner explicitly provided alternatives) require accounts to a proprietary service owned by Microsoft, not owned by your project? Or they way the Microsoft GitHub way is entrenched in the larger community via education & peer pressure to join the social media network.
I don’t see Microsoft with both its history & its shareholder obligations to maximize profit to do anything but try to extinguish—corporations always aim to monopolize.
I don’t think you realise how easy migration from Github is lol… Ask the Jira guys if you want an example of moving ISSUES. And Github easily has the most comprehensive API out of any service which makes migration VERY easy.
I know you think you’re helping Open source, but you’re doing the opposite here.
One of my projects failed in part because we were screwing around with infrastructure too much. Github is EXTREMELY comprehensive
Github is extremely UNRESTRICTIVE from the API side, especially considered to more “friendly” ones like SourceForge. VERY easy to migrate from to other 3rd party services. I’ve come across open options which don’t really have any good means of migration
It sounds great “oh set up your own server, etc”… Woo pro open source. It’s NOT. We did that once too. Wastes money, and wastes resources unless you’re a large organisation
If Microsoft is “that bad”, you should be making forks for their MIT projects (like VS Code). You’re not…
It makes us all look bad when people try to present Assumptions as facts, because every developer sees through them. There’s a reason no projects are actually protesting here…
On one hand you’re arguing Microsoft can’t add any services because thats bad. On another hand, if they remove them, you’ll argue something different. They can’t win
It’s literally NORMAL for any large developer project to need to authenticate your information with a login for lots of things. Firefox, Fedora, etc. Personally, if I’m contributing stack dumps, I don’t want my stack dumps accessible by everyone…
Contributor agreements on these projects are also incredibly common in case you weren’t aware…
You’re taking what you read from the other post as Gospal. You haven’t even tested that posts claims (or you have and couldn’t prove them)
Just so you know, one of my projects was actually mentioned in LinuxWorld Magazine 20 years ago and mentioned at the front of Slashdot, and I’ve used everything from self-hosted, Gitlab to Github over the years (CVS, SVN, Mercurial, tried the Ubuntu one but forget the name and Git now).
I think you’ve forgotten what open source is actually about… It’s about developing code, not managing infrastructure… And you’re conveniently glossing over how easy it is to migrate data from Github (its definitely not trapped there).
Instead of screaming “Microsoft Sucks” and nitpicking, you should be asking developers why they aren’t moving. That’s what helps open source developers
Everything you point to as ‘pros’ for Microsoft GitHub could be applied to GitLab, SourceHut, Codeberg, GNU Savannah, Notabug, Radicle, darcs hub, Smedeeree, Pijul Nest as far as hosting infrastructure where you don’t have to–and with the exception of GitLab being open core & a publicly-traded company, they are open source & not ran by corporations (some as for-profits, but indie, others, as foundations, others as community run). You’re conflating my (and many of our) distaste of capitalism/corporatism by rejecting Microsoft as if it means anti-access or anti-open source/anti-ethical source. Microsoft is 100% an enemy playing the long-con by vacuuming up all these developer adjacent services as megacorporations try to do (see their expanding portfolio of: WSL, Azure, GitHub, Codespaces, Sponsors, Copilot, VS Code, npm, Teams). I also believe it’s only a matter of time til they pull the plug on their APIs like Twitter & Reddit as the board of shareholders demand preventing migration (just like the “Search” is disabled).
There is also no shame in self-hosting these things & you can start hosting most DVCS with SSH + an HTTP server in front of the code even if it doesn’t have some web GUI to browse files so it doesn’t have to be that complicated. NixOS modules or similar can get you a cgit, GitLab Community, SourceHut, etc. all running without too much effort (services.cgit.enable = true), or forming a local collective & sharing resources is cool too & doesn’t need to be each project self-hosting. You can still have ‘barriers’ like authentication if you need that require agreeing to your community’s terms of service instead of Microsoft’s ToS–which is the system used by KDE, GNOME, & many other big FOSS self-hosted GitLab forges.
I’m also not against rejecting some of the tenets of “open source”–with OSI as its definitional gatekeeper–in favor of the copyfarleft, copy fair, Commons Clause, etc. that require corporations contribute code or finances as I don’t think it’s a difficult argument to say our current systems extract values from the Commons more than adding putting folks in positions of not getting to work on their valuable library that everyone relies on, but doesn’t want to help finance its maintenance (see Babel)… in which case, rejecting the corporations in favor of the Commons could be a greater goal than “open source is actually about”.
Even better when someone forked it away from proprietary, closed-source, publicly-traded, for-profit, US-based, account-required, training-AI-on-your-code-then-selling-it-back-to-you Microsoft GitHub forge/social media network often with vendor lock-in to some other forge without all that BS.
There’s no lock-in whatsoever on Github… And it’s free for open source projects…
And no account is required unless you’re submitting code…
The only valid thing here is the Github AI training honestly, but there is no reason to believe they can’t scan code from other repo’s.
Also, its only a matter of time until Microsoft gets sued for it
https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/ it’s been ongoing
Submitting issues & discussions require an account. Using the search for code requires an account. On Lemmy this week there was also a post about viewing “Discussions” & “Wiki” being A/B tested or whatever with an account required to view. Which is to say, if submitting patches, issues, & or using some features requires giving up personal info & agreeing to Microsoft’s ToS to create an account, you have locked out users & their freedom isn’t respected if their autonomy to not create an account with a company known for predatory behavior cannot be respected.
Users locked out sucks, but so does lock in. Sure you can set a non Microsoft GitHub remote & push to it, but I’m talking about the forge on whole rather than the tool that backs it. The more Microsoft GitHub features you rely on, the more the existance of a
./.githubdirectory’s or otherwise gets cited as being too hard to move. As more features get locked behind authentication, so will the APIs that allow some ability to migrate. GitHub were the popularizers of the “pull request” model too which is severely limiting but is the only way you can operate on their site (no stacked diffs, mailing patchsets, etc.) which eliminates alternating review methods (while you could use a third-party, due to MS GitHub’s ingrained workflow to too many, I’ve seen alternatives being considered as “too hard” rather than “different” (even if could be “better”)). I’ve also witnessed some communities like Elm freeload on the “free” hosting & require all community packages be upload to only MS GitHub or you can’t publish & by proxy participate in the community (or in their case even refer to other remotes, VCSs, tarballs for packages (even private ones) but that is due to Elm having a terrible default package manager).They’ve embraced a Git forge; they’ve extended the space with Codespaces, Sponsors, Actions, Copilot, even VS Code proliferation far beyond pre-acquisition GitHub; now we just await the extinguish part.
How can I learn more about alternatives to pull requests and other tools or processes for code review?
I was the only one in that thread who actually tested that post last week, and i couldn’t replicate it. Nobody tested it, and there wasn’t even a screenshot or repo which was tested. There was 0 evidence. People only suggested A/B testing only after I tested it, because they were likely too lazy to test (and rather than ask OP for their testing methodology, instead just assumed they were right). Nobody mentioned it in any projects either, and they WOULD have. I suspect OP was wrong (and there was a partial outage that day), which could have affected those services.
The search for code DOES NOT MATTER! You can still download the code… Not a big deal. The tipoff should be, that nobody hosted by Github is actually publicly complaining about it on their project lol
I actually STRONGLY agree with that lawsuit though
Just because Microsoft made improvements to the service, doesn’t mean they plan to extinguish anything. It doesn’t always happen (VS Code is a good example… Totally open source, multiplatform, and MIT licenced)
But you’re willing to gloss over all methods of contribution (unless the project owner explicitly provided alternatives) require accounts to a proprietary service owned by Microsoft, not owned by your project? Or they way the Microsoft GitHub way is entrenched in the larger community via education & peer pressure to join the social media network.
I don’t see Microsoft with both its history & its shareholder obligations to maximize profit to do anything but try to extinguish—corporations always aim to monopolize.
I don’t think you realise how easy migration from Github is lol… Ask the Jira guys if you want an example of moving ISSUES. And Github easily has the most comprehensive API out of any service which makes migration VERY easy.
I know you think you’re helping Open source, but you’re doing the opposite here.
Just so you know, one of my projects was actually mentioned in LinuxWorld Magazine 20 years ago and mentioned at the front of Slashdot, and I’ve used everything from self-hosted, Gitlab to Github over the years (CVS, SVN, Mercurial, tried the Ubuntu one but forget the name and Git now).
I think you’ve forgotten what open source is actually about… It’s about developing code, not managing infrastructure… And you’re conveniently glossing over how easy it is to migrate data from Github (its definitely not trapped there).
Instead of screaming “Microsoft Sucks” and nitpicking, you should be asking developers why they aren’t moving. That’s what helps open source developers
Everything you point to as ‘pros’ for Microsoft GitHub could be applied to GitLab, SourceHut, Codeberg, GNU Savannah, Notabug, Radicle, darcs hub, Smedeeree, Pijul Nest as far as hosting infrastructure where you don’t have to–and with the exception of GitLab being open core & a publicly-traded company, they are open source & not ran by corporations (some as for-profits, but indie, others, as foundations, others as community run). You’re conflating my (and many of our) distaste of capitalism/corporatism by rejecting Microsoft as if it means anti-access or anti-open source/anti-ethical source. Microsoft is 100% an enemy playing the long-con by vacuuming up all these developer adjacent services as megacorporations try to do (see their expanding portfolio of: WSL, Azure, GitHub, Codespaces, Sponsors, Copilot, VS Code, npm, Teams). I also believe it’s only a matter of time til they pull the plug on their APIs like Twitter & Reddit as the board of shareholders demand preventing migration (just like the “Search” is disabled).
There is also no shame in self-hosting these things & you can start hosting most DVCS with SSH + an HTTP server in front of the code even if it doesn’t have some web GUI to browse files so it doesn’t have to be that complicated. NixOS modules or similar can get you a cgit, GitLab Community, SourceHut, etc. all running without too much effort (
services.cgit.enable = true), or forming a local collective & sharing resources is cool too & doesn’t need to be each project self-hosting. You can still have ‘barriers’ like authentication if you need that require agreeing to your community’s terms of service instead of Microsoft’s ToS–which is the system used by KDE, GNOME, & many other big FOSS self-hosted GitLab forges.I’m also not against rejecting some of the tenets of “open source”–with OSI as its definitional gatekeeper–in favor of the copyfarleft, copy fair, Commons Clause, etc. that require corporations contribute code or finances as I don’t think it’s a difficult argument to say our current systems extract values from the Commons more than adding putting folks in positions of not getting to work on their valuable library that everyone relies on, but doesn’t want to help finance its maintenance (see Babel)… in which case, rejecting the corporations in favor of the Commons could be a greater goal than “open source is actually about”.